Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

“No one’s asserting privilege; they’re following the orders of the White House not to answer certain questions,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a committee member, after the interview had been going for about four hours.

It's amazing that the trick to not getting your executive privilege challenged is just not to assert it.

In the end, members of both parties said, Hicks answered all of their questions from the campaign period and “most” of their questions about the transition. But she answered none of their questions pertaining to the period since Trump took office, which meant that lawmakers were unable to secure her testimony regarding a key event in which she played a role: the drafting of a misleading statement to explain an un­or­tho­dox meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan between top Trump campaign members and a Russian lawyer during the 2016 race.

Sessions has not faced official congressional censure. But several Republican and Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee believe they must issue a contempt citation for Bannon to demonstrate to future witnesses that congressional subpoenas must be complied with. The decision depends on Conaway and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) reaching an agreement, but the two have not yet met to discuss the issue, according to Conaway.

Rick Gates is quickly discovering that cooperation with Robert Mueller has its advantages. Special counsel drops charges; judge OKs spring break trip w/ his kids to Boston. http://politi.co/2Cr30RV @politico

Hard not to surmise he had to give something substantial for the quick, sudden reversal. A detail many people forget is that while Gates worked with Manafort a long time, he stayed with the Trump campaign through transition. He may have witnessed something damaging in his own right.

Manafort “secretly retained” several former senior European politicians to covertly promote Ukrainian interests in Washington. “Although the former politicians would appear to be providing their independent assessments of Government of Ukraine actions, in fact they were paid lobbyists for Ukraine,” according to a superseding indictment of Manafort filed by Mueller’s team.

The coterie of Europeans was known as the Hapsburg Group, Andrew Weissman, one of Mueller’s prosecutors, said at a hearing on Friday. The group was led by a “former European chancellor” and was paid more than 2 million euros in 2012 and 2013, according to the court filings.

The former chancellor isn’t named in the court filings, but appears to be Alfred Gusenbauer, who served as chancellor of Austria between 2007 and 2008. Gusenbauer and two lobbyists involved in Manafort’s lobbying campaign met with members of Congress and staffers in 2013, according to Justice Department disclosures retroactively filed last year by the lobbying firm Mercury.

Manafort called the Hapsburg Group’s lobbying effort “SUPER VIP” in an “EYES ONLY” memo cited in the new indictment. It would involve “a small group of high-level European highly influencial [sic] champions and politically credible friends who can act informally and without any visible relationship with the Government of Ukraine,” he said.

The retroactively filed disclosures show that Gusenbauer met with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, Reps. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) and Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), House Foreign Affairs Committee staffers and others in Washington one week in 2013. He was accompanied by two Mercury lobbyists, Ed Kutler (who has since left the firm) and Mike McSherry. Kutler also accompanied Romano Prodi, a former Italian prime minister, to meetings with Royce and a staffer for House Majority Whip Eric Cantor months beforehand.

Gusenbauer and Prodi said their work was focused on bringing Ukraine and the European Union closer together and denied being paid by Yanukovych or Manafort.

Its going to be incredible if Mueller's witch-hunt ends up taking some high-profile European scalps.

The former Trump campaign manager would not talk about the production of a false statement about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between top campaign officials and a Russian lawyer. Nor would he answer questions about conversations surrounding the firing of FBI Director James Comey, or any discussions he had with President Trump about special counsel Robert Mueller's potential firing.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told reporters Thursday that Lewandowksi argued to the panel that he didn't think the topics were "relevant," though the committee emphasized that was not his determination to make.

No one is afraid of repercussions of not cooperating with House panel since Bannon. It also transparently shows what a farce it is.

In her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last week, outgoing White House Communications Director Hope Hicks said one of her email accounts had been hacked, a committee source familiar with Hicks' testimony confirms to CBS News.

According to the source, the email account that was hacked was not a Trump organization or campaign email address but, as first reported by NBC News, Hicks explained that she no longer had access to a campaign account as well as a personal email account, and it wasn't clear which of the two accounts was hacked. During lawmakers' questions, she also presented herself as being not technologically savvy.

Sounds like a great excuse to use if you don't want to produce any docs. Also a 29 year-old claiming she's not technologically savvy is hilarious given the context of the technical literacy of all the old people she's surrounded with.

House Intelligence Committee Republicans have completed a draft report in their year-long Russia probe that states they found no evidence President Trump or anyone affiliated with him colluded with Russian officials to affect the outcome of the 2016 election, a conclusion expected to incite backlash from Democrats.

Republicans also determined that while the Russian government did pursue “active measures” to interfere in the election, it did not do so with the intention of helping Trump’s campaign, contradicting the U.S. intelligence community’s findings.

Sure, Jan.

He argued against using subpoenas or stronger measures — including contempt citations — to compel more testimony from witnesses who refused to answer questions about their time in the administration, arguing that Trump might eventually want to invoke executive privilege.

Bannon, Lewandowski, and Hicks all refused to fully cooperate. Plus they refused several Democratic subpoenas because ?

An Indictment is an accusation. It remains up to a court to determine guilt.

Not summoning indicted people is the right move. If the committee compels testimony, then it can't be used against them in court. The 5th limits things. They either don't compel (no useful answers), or compel and lose the resulting evidence. The best answer is to leave the indicted to the courts.

I have problems with the (R)s whitewashing conclusions for their pal in office. Once again, party loyalty above national loyalty. But the above choice isn't on my list.

An Indictment is an accusation. It remains up to a court to determine guilt.

You're right, I'm pre-judging because it was an open secret Manafort was involved all sort of nefarious goings on in Ukraine. Except for the Russians everyone else has already pled guilty.

Originally Posted by reader50

Not summoning indicted people is the right move. If the committee compels testimony, then it can't be used against them in court. The 5th limits things. They either don't compel (no useful answers), or compel and lose the resulting evidence. The best answer is to leave the indicted to the courts.

If that were the case, wouldn't the Special Counsel step-in if he wanted to preserve testimony?

Also, I'm not sure I understand. If someone admitted to the committee they murdered someone that couldn't be used in court?

As I understand it, the issue is compelled answers. If they volunteer info to a committee, everything's good for prosecution. It would be a confession. But if the committee compels answers, those answers cannot be used against them in court. And the courts can punish to a far greater degree than Congress can (using contempt). IANAL

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

As I understand it, Congress can compel someone to answer anyway. But the 5th still applies. So any compelled answer could not be used against the witness. However, anything the witness coughed up (compelled or not) could be used against someone else. They just can't force a person to incriminate themselves. If they do, it's not admissible.

The 5th doesn't have an exception written into the clause, so it's binding on Congress too. I'm not a lawyer, but how else could it work if Congress compels an incriminating answer? Either a) Congress can't compel such answers, or b) the answer becomes inadmissible against that witness, or c) the 5th is just words on old paper. I believe b) is the correct one.

An Indictment is an accusation. It remains up to a court to determine guilt.

Not summoning indicted people is the right move. If the committee compels testimony, then it can't be used against them in court. The 5th limits things. They either don't compel (no useful answers), or compel and lose the resulting evidence. The best answer is to leave the indicted to the courts.

I have problems with the (R)s whitewashing conclusions for their pal in office. Once again, party loyalty above national loyalty. But the above choice isn't on my list.

Yeah, that's the problem here: the GOP cherry picks, and it smells that they want have something to sell to their base come mid-term election time. But just like the dumb Nunes memo (biggest scandal since Watergate!!) that means their report will not stand the test of time.

I don't think they can reach a conclusion without speaking to these important witnesses. Which might mean that they have to wait with a final report until Mueller's investigation has concluded — which may take years.

I guess the technicality is compelled testimony could likely lead to evidence. So even if you admit you murdered the person, it helps connect dots once they get evidence.

I dunno, Speaking out of my ass. If Person A says "Yes I colluded!" that doesn't stop them from being charged with evidence they obtain. But since its protected, can Mueller use that testimony to obtain a warrant, say for emails?

I guess the technicality is compelled testimony could likely lead to evidence. So even if you admit you murdered the person, it helps connect dots once they get evidence.

I dunno, Speaking out of my ass. If Person A says "Yes I colluded!" that doesn't stop them from being charged with evidence they obtain. But since its protected, can Mueller use that testimony to obtain a warrant, say for emails?

First of all, these are independent investigations, and I see no reason why the House Committee shouldn't at least try to get witness statements. AFAIK you have the right to plead the 5th in this context, so their testimony might not be interesting. But I think Mueller can (and should) use all testimony in his case. The biggest difference here as far as I can tell is that these statements are under oath, so if Mueller catches them lying, they can be charged with perjury.

Secondly, if the Republicans on the House Committee declare the case closed without even trying to get testimony from Gates, Flynn and co., I don't think they can claim that they performed an investigation in good faith, turned over all the rocks, searched all the nooks and crannies, to reach a conclusion either way. Half-arsing the investigation to prevent being slaughtered in the mid-terms will further erode trust in the political system and ultimately, in them. It's a pyrrhic “victory”.

As I understand it, Congress can compel someone to answer anyway. But the 5th still applies. So any compelled answer could not be used against the witness. However, anything the witness coughed up (compelled or not) could be used against someone else. They just can't force a person to incriminate themselves. If they do, it's not admissible.

The 5th doesn't have an exception written into the clause, so it's binding on Congress too. I'm not a lawyer, but how else could it work if Congress compels an incriminating answer? Either a) Congress can't compel such answers, or b) the answer becomes inadmissible against that witness, or c) the 5th is just words on old paper. I believe b) is the correct one.

That's the way I understand it, too. Although there is also executive privilege which has been stretched beyond recognition by former Trump White House and transition team officials (dubbed “Schrödinger's executive privilege”).

Mr. Dowd drew criticism last weekend when he gave a statement to the media calling for the Justice Department to shut down Mr. Mueller’s investigation. Mr. Dowd later said he was speaking for himself, not the president.

But in the interview, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Trump had approved the statement he had given. “He thought it was a good statement. And I still do,” Mr. Dowd said. He said there was nothing in the statement that he hadn’t already said directly to Mr. Mueller.

Reading the tea leaves, if GOP stammering over Trumps lawyers statement last weekend was a preview of how they'll act if he goes through with firing Mueller, they're going to throw their hands up and say, 'hey it's within his power' and absolve themselves of responsibility.

How they'll punt on reinstating Mueller as an independent counsel, I'm not sure, though I suspect it'll be needing to move on or it creating a distraction.

The new filings show that Rosenstein specifically approved lines of investigation for the special counsel in an August 2017 memo. A version of the memo filed in court showed that Rosenstein signed off on an investigation of whether Manafort “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials” and of Manafort’s work as an international political consultant in Ukraine before joining Trump’s campaign.

A London-based lawyer was ordered to serve 30 days in prison after a federal judge Tuesday handed down the first sentence in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Alex van der Zwaan, 33, a son-in-law of a prominent Russian-based banker, pleaded guilty Feb. 20 to lying to the FBI about his contacts in September and October of 2016 with a business associate of onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and with Manafort’s deputy, former Trump aide Rick Gates. Prosecutors said van der Zwaan also destroyed emails the special counsel had requested.

So a lawyer destroyed evidence. In a special Federal investigation. Gets to spend 30 days in (low-security) jail. Um, very scary?

I'd think destroying evidence in an investigation would be behavior unbecoming an officer of the court. Besides the penalty, the crime should result in loss of law license. Plus a fat fine. A lawyer has to know better, it can't be an innocent mistake.

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Apr 5, 2018, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by reader50

So a lawyer destroyed evidence. In a special Federal investigation. Gets to spend 30 days in (low-security) jail. Um, very scary?

I'd think destroying evidence in an investigation would be behavior unbecoming an officer of the court. Besides the penalty, the crime should result in loss of law license. Plus a fat fine. A lawyer has to know better, it can't be an innocent mistake.

Comey tells @maddow that the FBI started investigating whether Rudy Giuliani had advanced notice from inside the FBI that Comey would re-open the Clinton probe and whether there were leaks inside the FBI for political reasons, but he was fired before the investigation finished.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who filed a request Thursday for 70 blank subpoenas. Mueller requested subpoenas for appearances in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) in the case against former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.